CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. 03-10-00310-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 23, 2014

Linda M. Fischer v. Joel H. Klein Joel H. Klein & Associates Wyatt Wright Wayne Wright LLP Billy Wells, and Chicago Title Insurance Co.

Linda Fischer appealed the trial court's dismissal of her claims against Joel H. Klein and other appellees for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. She argued her suit was not an impermissible collateral attack on a prior Bexar County agreed order, asserting extrinsic fraud and that she was a non-party. The court reviewed whether her claims constituted an impermissible collateral attack based on intrinsic or extrinsic fraud. The court concluded that Fischer's claims, seeking to recover disbursed sale proceeds and challenging the Bexar County agreed order, represented intrinsic fraud because the misconduct was known or could have been known and at issue in the prior suit. Therefore, her suit was an impermissible collateral attack, and the trial court correctly dismissed her claims for want of jurisdiction.

Collateral AttackSubject-Matter JurisdictionIntrinsic FraudExtrinsic FraudAgreed OrderJudgment EnforcementHomestead ExemptionDue ProcessTrial Court ErrorAppellate Review
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Office of Attorney General of Texas

The Attorney General of Texas sought to vacate a trial court's order that granted Robert Morris Hale's bill of review, which aimed to overturn a 2002 paternity judgment. The Attorney General contended that Robert failed to plead the necessary sworn facts, specifically regarding extrinsic fraud and the absence of his own fault. The court determined that Robert's allegations of misrepresentation by the child's mother constituted intrinsic fraud, not the extrinsic fraud required for a bill of review. Furthermore, Robert's claims of ignorance about DNA testing rights and inability to afford testing were deemed insufficient to excuse his own fault or neglect. Consequently, the appellate court concluded that the trial court abused its discretion in granting the bill of review. The writ of mandamus was conditionally granted, ordering the trial court to vacate its February 15, 2006 order.

Bill of ReviewPaternityChild SupportExtrinsic FraudIntrinsic FraudParental RightsMandamusAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionTexas Family Code
References
19
Case No. 13-04-567-CV; 13-06-032-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 25, 2007

Chemject International, Inc. v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Company

This case involves two appeals from a class action lawsuit settlement against Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (SWBT) by Chemject International, Inc., an unnamed class member. In the first appeal (13-04-567-CV), Chemject challenged the trial court's dismissal of its intervention motion and establishment of settlement administration. The court dismissed this appeal, finding that Chemject's intervention was untimely as the trial court's plenary power had expired. In the second appeal (13-06-032-CV), Chemject challenged the trial court's grant of summary judgment against its bill of review, which alleged extrinsic fraud in the class action settlement. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, ruling that Chemject failed to prove extrinsic fraud, as the alleged misrepresentations were intrinsic and already litigated, and complaints against class counsel do not constitute fraud by the opposing party.

Class Action LawsuitSettlement AppealPlea to JurisdictionMotion to InterveneBill of ReviewSummary JudgmentExtrinsic FraudIntrinsic FraudPlenary JurisdictionDue Process
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Morse v. Weingarten

This case involves a securities fraud class action where plaintiffs, shareholders of First Capital Holdings Corp., alleged that defendant Michael Milken violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, Rule 10b-5, and committed common law fraud and negligent misrepresentation. Plaintiffs claimed Milken, through his 'Daisy Chain' scheme, caused First Capital to invest heavily in junk bonds, leading to its collapse and misleading statements about its financial health. Milken moved to dismiss all claims under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b) and 9(b) for failure to state a claim and failure to plead fraud with particularity, and to strike portions of the complaint under Rule 12(f). The court granted Milken's motion to dismiss all claims, finding that Morse failed to adequately allege a primary violation of Section 10(b) due to a lack of 'in connection with' and causation, insufficient knowledge for aider and abettor liability, insufficient control for control person liability, and inadequate pleading of conspiracy. The common law fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims were also dismissed for similar reasons, and the court granted the motion to strike references to Milken's criminal conviction and income as immaterial.

Securities FraudClass Action LawsuitMotion to DismissFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 9(b)Aiding and AbettingControl Person LiabilityConspiracyCommon Law FraudNegligent Misrepresentation
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 03, 1960

Battista v. Potofsky

The defendant, an unincorporated association, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Orange County, which denied its motion to dismiss a complaint for insufficiency, alleging fraud. The appellate court reversed the order, granted the motion, and dismissed the complaint. The court found that the allegations were insufficient to demonstrate that the fraud complained of was authorized or ratified by the members of the union, which is an unincorporated association. Leave was granted for the plaintiffs to serve an amended complaint.

FraudUnincorporated AssociationDismissalInsufficiency of PleadingAuthorizationRatificationCivil PracticeAppellate ReviewComplaint Dismissal
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tribune Co. v. Purcigliotti

The Tribune Company, plaintiff, filed a RICO action against multiple defendants including Robert A. Purcigliotti, Cascione, Chechanover & Purcigliotti (CCP), Dr. Walter Stingle, three unions, and 585 individual union members. Tribune alleges violations of the RICO Act, common law fraud, and unjust enrichment stemming from a scheme to file fraudulent workers’ compensation claims for hearing loss against the New York News, motivated by a past strike. Defendants moved to dismiss the claims on various grounds, including abstention, failure to plead with particularity under Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b), immunity, failure to state a claim under RICO (pattern, operation/management, causation), failure to state state-law fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims, unjust enrichment, and collateral estoppel/res judicata. The court denied most of the defendants' motions to dismiss, finding the plaintiff adequately pleaded its claims and that abstention and immunity were not applicable in most instances. However, the court granted the motions to dismiss the unjust enrichment claims against the Union and Individual defendants, finding insufficient allegations of enrichment.

RICO ActWorkers' Compensation FraudMail FraudAbstention DoctrinePleading RequirementsWitness ImmunityRacketeering EnterpriseConspiracyUnjust EnrichmentCollateral Estoppel
References
93
Case No. ADJ2941365 (BGN 0131581)
Regular
May 22, 2019

JOCELYN JOHNSON vs. COCA COLA BOTTLING COMPANY, KEMPER NATIONAL INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Jocelyn Johnson's petition for reconsideration of a prior decision that found no fraud in the procurement of earlier findings and awards. Johnson alleged an incorrect injury date, insufficient medical evaluation, and denial of due process. The Board found that Johnson failed to demonstrate extrinsic fraud, as the issues raised could and should have been litigated in prior proceedings or appeals. Therefore, good cause did not exist to reopen the 1996 and 2002 findings and awards.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderFraudDate of InjuryAgreed Medical EvaluatorDue ProcessLabor Code Section 5803Continuing JurisdictionExtrinsic Fraud
References
11
Case No. Docket Entries No. 140, 141
Regular Panel Decision

In re Plains All Am. Pipeline, L.P. Sec. Litig.

This Memorandum and Opinion addresses the defendants' second motion to dismiss a securities-fraud amended complaint. The case involves a highly publicized oil spill on the California coast by Plains All American Pipeline, an oil and gas pipeline owner and operator. Plaintiffs, a putative class of stockholders, allege that Plains and its officers made misrepresentations about the spill's extent and the company's environmental compliance programs, causing a drop in stock price. The court previously dismissed claims without prejudice, allowing for amendment. Now, evaluating the Second Amended Consolidated Complaint, the court grants the defendants' motions to dismiss. The court finds that the plaintiffs failed to adequately allege specific, actionable misrepresentations and, more critically, failed to establish a strong inference of scienter for the individual defendants for any remaining potentially actionable statements. Consequently, all claims are dismissed with prejudice, deeming further amendment futile.

Securities FraudOil SpillPipeline IntegrityEnvironmental ComplianceClass ActionMotions to DismissScienterRule 9(b)PSLRAStock Price
References
55
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Post

The case involves defendants Constance G. Post and Wayne Charles, convicted of mail fraud, honest services fraud, and conspiracy, who challenged their convictions post-trial following the Supreme Court's Skilling decision. Post, a Mount Vernon city official, engaged in undisclosed self-dealing to benefit Charles through various schemes involving city contracts and HUD funds. The court found that erroneous jury instructions on honest services fraud, which did not limit it to bribes or kickbacks, constituted a Skilling error. Given the intertwined presentation of valid pecuniary fraud and invalid honest services fraud theories, the court could not guarantee the jury's verdict was solely based on a permissible theory. Consequently, the motion to dismiss the mail fraud and conspiracy counts is granted, while Charles's false statements conviction remains due to a lack of prejudicial spillover.

Mail fraudHonest services fraudConspiracyPublic corruptionUndisclosed self-dealingSkilling v. United StatesJury instructionsHarmless error reviewFederal criminal lawPost-conviction motion
References
59
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Barto

The defendant was convicted after a jury trial in Seneca County Court for insurance fraud in the third degree, falsifying business records in the first degree, defrauding the government, and falsely reporting an incident in the third degree. The charges arose from the defendant, an acting Village Justice, falsely reporting an assault to police, allegedly to obtain prescription pain medication. Medical evidence presented by the prosecution, including the absence of injuries despite extensive testing, contradicted the defendant's account of being strangled and struck. The appellate court unanimously affirmed the judgment, rejecting the defendant's contentions regarding the legal sufficiency and weight of the evidence. The court found that the jury could reasonably conclude the defendant falsely reported the incident and caused a false workers' compensation form to be filed. The appellate court also found no reason to modify the sentence despite improper prosecutorial statements.

Insurance FraudFalsifying Business RecordsDefrauding GovernmentFalse ReportingAssault ClaimMedical EvidenceLegal SufficiencyWeight of EvidenceWorkers' CompensationJury Trial
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 1,329 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational